and volume. so the requirements, there are only use types under commercial and that will change to more detailed categories. such as retail sales, personal services and restaurants, light manufacturing and so forth. in order to prescribe the amounts of bicycle parking for each of these unit categories, staff compared each use category to comparable cities and overall, we thought to get bicycle parking for 5% of trips generated for each use. here are a few examples of before-and-after requirements. so for example, for a grocery store of 30,000-square-feet, which is the size of like a whole foods, right now class 1 or 2 combined -- but the new requirements will make it to full class 1 and 12 class 2

spaces. for a restaurant of 2500-square-feet, existing requirements doesn't require any bicycle parking. and our proposal will require 2 class 1 and 3 class 2. and the same with medical clinics and office buildings there will be increases. and also a separation of class 1 and class 2. our proposal guides the location of bicycle parking for indoor spaces and we would incentivize bicycle parking as an active use. bicycle parking on the ground

floor is considered active year so long as the space as direct access from the sidewalk and visible also from the sidewalk. and it would also limit the combined lobby and bicycle space to no more than 40' or 25% of the lot frontage. our proposal will also include a no zoning administrator bulletin, to provide further specifications for the design and layout of bicycle parking. this is again an example that the department worked closely with sfmta to create really simple diagrams that depict these requirements. an example here is showing the required distance between racks and also the distance to a curb or wall. another incentive offered is a line conversion of auto parking to bike parking. existing bike parking requirements also allow such

conversion, for class 1 parking is required. however, this provision in the code does not specify any details and therefore remains unclear and really hard to implement. our proposal would provide specific ratios to convert an auto parking to class 1 or class 2 bicycle parking spaces and at minimum, each auto parking space can be replaced with seven bike parking spaces of any combination. existing buildings also could voluntarily convert their auto parking space to bike parking and i want to highlight that this is -- this requirement would just allow project sponsor and property owners to convert auto parking to bicycle parking and they are not mandating such conversion. also there is a provision for

an in-lieu fee to satisfy parts of class 2 bicycle parking requirements. and this ordinance will create a bicycle parking fund. sfmta would administer this fund and they will use the moneys to provide bicycle parking on public right-of-ways that have deficiencis in bicycle parking. there is also clear triggers that are established for bicycle parking requirements. bike parking would be needed for new construction, addition of 20% or more-square-footage and increase in car parking capacity. the city believes it's important to be the lead in green building design and therefore, all existing city-owned and leased buildings and garages would be subject to these new requirements. our proposal would also

interact with other existing city laws. in march, 2012, legislation sponsored by supervisor avalos was passed that amended the environment code to require owners of existing commercial buildings to allow their tenants to bring their bikes in. alternatively, if owners don't want to allow their tenants to bring their bikes in, they are required by the environment code to provide bicycle parking space. our proposed ordinance allows such attorneys owners to comply with the code. any property that has not complied with environment code by august, 1 2013 deadline they will be out of compliance and if this ordinance is adopted they would have to comply with the updated bicycle parking requirements as defined in this

ordinance. finally, the zoning administrator would also be able to modify, waive and provide variances for bicycle parking under certain circumstances. in cases where off-street car parking is not provided. overall, no variance would be given when automobile parking exists, or proposed in the building. this concludes my presentation. we are pleased to present this to you today. this ordinance would help the city to satisfy the increasing need for bicycle infrastructure. sufficient bike parking would help make biking a convenient choice for commuting.

>> we have receive some support and comments from the san francisco real estate department and san francisco bike coalition sfmta. we looking forward to comments from you toble possibly have an adoption hearing in january. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> we look forward to continuing this conversation and moving forward with this for a vote in january.

the current bicycle parking standards adopted in 2005 were sufficient at the time, but since then we have seen as was specified, seen an increase of 71% ridership since that time in 2005. with the san francisco city council and the board of supervisors adopting a 20% of trips by bike, by 2020, as a citywide goal, clearly these bike parking amendments are really great way to help show the ability for someone to be able to ride to and from work, play, shopping and whatever it might be. bicycle parking is obviously a very important component to the bicycle network besides simply bike lanes. with estimates of approximately 86,000 bicycle trips each day and as you heard there are approximately only 3,000 sidewalk racks currently in existence. these people obviously need a

safe and convenient place to park their bikes. so i look forward to the discussion. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. tim colin on behalf of the housing action coalition. we are very pleased to support this. you should know a senior staff person on the bicycle coalition joined our board, and the bicycle coalition is regularly attendance when' review and analyze and discuss projects. the view of increasing bicycles is a strong part of what we look at when we see projects. when i have noticed over the years that i have been there, is how many more people in our community are using bikes as they preferred way to get around? and how much more support has developed in our community around this? this is a sensible, logical advance in urban policy and deserves your support. we

strongly endorse where this is going. thank you. >> any additional public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioner antonini? >> i have a few questions on some of the items. you mentioned an increase of 20% in-square-footage or one more additional dwelling units that would trigger the requirement, would that be for a private residence too? if you just added 20% to your residence? >> so any building? >> but it could be a private residence or a private home? >> yes. >> okay. i don't quite understand that. >> maybe if you could describe the parking requirements for a small residential building, it's just garage space that is sufficient. that is all. >> for buildings of four units or less, sorry, for buildings less than four units, there

won't need to be any rocks. it just needs to be sufficient space for bikes in their garage or any other storage space. for buildings of four or more units there are requirements for one bicycle space for each unit. and then any building that adds another unit or adds 20% of-square-footage to the building will be subject to the new requirements. >> okay. my second question is who makes the decision? i saw an example of the street parking being taken away and replaced by bicycle parking. who makes that kind of decision? >> i think -- >> my name is heath maddox, manager of the bicycle program.

the picture you saw was an example of on-street bicycle parking. we have our own bicycle parking program and install bike racks and we have been putting racks on the streets that we call "bicycle parking corrals." the picture may have been a little misleading because i don't think on-street bicycle parking would be an appropriate response for any of these requirements in the planning code. >> from what i am hearing from you it's voluntary, because it's hard enough to park in some of the neighborhoods, but you saying most of the time you try to do it on the sidewalk if you can? >> we do it increasingly,

there is so much demand for bicycle parking and sidewalks are narrow and there is a lot of other uses, that there is no room on the sidewalk and businesses are increasingly realizing what is important to them is to increase traffic and customers to their business. and that you get more people there by bicycle than by car . >> the other thing, i don't know if you can answer that, but i talked about some of the places -- i don't know if it's class 1 or class 2, but restaurants are often very small and very tight as it is. and i doubt there would be room inside many restaurants to be able to put a class 1 parking space. and i also questioned medical offices. many medical offices are very small and they are within buildings that have a lot of offices there. how would you handle that? would you make the whole building do it or each individual owner of a medical

office have to provide their own parking space? >> the requirements are for new projects. so for example, when there is a new restaurant, the class 1 requirement is for every 7500-square-feet of restaurant, there will be class 1 bicycle parking. if it's less than 7500, then class 1 won't be required. but class 2 will be in the public right-of-way, so they don't have to use their own space for that. the same with other uses. if the space that is provided does not reach of the minimum amount of-square-footage that will trigger bicycle parking, they won't have to provide

class 1. >> and existing facilities would not have to comply with this? >> existing facilities do not have to do that unless they are doing any update. >> the 20% increase? >> yes. >> and finally, you didn't talk too much about the lockers and showers, but i assume a fairly large company would provide that. what is the trigger for that, because that is an expensive proposition? >> we didn't change the requirement for showers and lockers, but aligned the use times with the rest of the code. like it was defined commercial/industrial, when they go through major renovation or any new construction of commercial/industry and broke it down, restaurants, medical

offices, et cetera. that is what we did, but requirements we kept the same at this point. so the same table, same requirements. they have been doing that since, i guess, those requirements were in place in the late 1990's or early 2000. so we haven't made any changes and that is why i did not address that. >> thank you, commissioner moore. >> i am very interested and very supportive of this particular legislation. what i would like to ask and perhaps you are already doing it, i see diagrams of bike racks, which reflect more of the traditional approach to bike racks and a significant amount of theft, which is happening. i hope sfmta and yourself and the bicycle coalition will strongly investigate which types of bike racks and which types of locks provide the

largest security? i just recently read an article where the police department themselves tried to recommend to bicyclists what to do. it's a question of staying in the dialogue of technology, new and improved bike racks, including the fact that people are starting to ride slightly more expensive bicycles than just the $10 rotterdam-type bicycle. with that, because it make thems feel more comfortable or safety people want assurance that those bicycle racks are safe. just like with your car, you don't want it falling over when someone else pulls their bike out. that there is a little bit of understanding of what it takes to park a bike properly and safely and keep it from being stolen.

>> miss rodgers? >> commissioner sugaya? >> thank you. this isn't on this subject, but since it's about bicycles, maybe the question is more directed towards mta or the bicycle coalition, but has there been any thinking and i don't though this. i asked this question the other day and they said there was also legislation, but is there any discussion about legislating bicycle licenses for individuals buying bicycles? when i was a young kid riding a bicycle, i had it take my bike to the police department and get a license. it was put on there with a little metal plate and clamped on there. it wasn't screwed on or anything. i guess i could have pried it off, but i was a good little kid. so is there anything going on like that, especially since there is the statistics

that we were just given and visiblely on the streets a lot more bicyclists? you know the paper carries storis about the bad parts about it, that that is i'm sure in the minority, but on the other hand i don't know is there any thinking going on about licensing bikes and having a mandatory training program or something? >> we get inquiries from the public, recommendations about once a year. somebody is interested in exploring licensing cyclists. and, in fact the sfmta board asked staff to look at that back in 2009, and i wrote a staff report at that time and it's up on the mta bike website. so i can send the link to that report and send it out to the commission. i will just say, in brief, you need to distinguish between

"licensing of bicycles," and "licensing of cyclists." licensing of bicycles is what you did as a young man and that is different from getting a driver's license. and bicycle licensing is something that is really largely only aids in recovering a bicycle that has been stolen. and it used to be something that was done widespread in san francisco it was taken care of by the fire department. it's largely out of favor because one, the fees are set at the state that is too low to even make it pay for itself and there are third party bicycle registrations online type of services that are just as effective if not more effective because they go outside of san francisco proper. berkeley has stopped it and i think davis is one of the few communities that does that anymore. licensing of bicyclists is something that would be

preempting state law. we cannot license bicyclists at the local level without making changes to the state code. and aside from that, i like i said, i will make sure that the staff report finds it. there are a number of other challenges, but that is primarily the main one that legally it can't be done. >> is portland still doing it? >> to my knowledge nobody in the country has a program whereby bicyclists are licensed. with the san francisco bicycle coalition and we get funding from the county transportation authority and we offer these classes free. so there is lots of education going on out there. >> thank you. commissioner borden, following up on commissioner sugaya's tangent, because i have had my bike stolen in last year and in the business below me, someone

broke the window and took the bicycle out in the middle of the nightist would recommend -- obviously not licensing, but some sort of registry process because every person i know pretty much who owns a bike has had it in their building in the proper bicycle storage, in the garage and has had their bicycle stolen. i know it's different than what you guys are looking at, but the one thing i would think about with the visible bicycle parking is kind of fact for thieves it gives them a place to target. and have been been woken up in the middle of the night by someone throwing a large cinder block basically through a very thick glass window to get to two bicycles in the window really gives me pause. i'm not saying this isn't the right approach , but something to be required. if your building or restaurant doesn't have a parking requirement and you are not

seek parking you don't have bicycle parking >> you mean car parking? >> yes. for example, i live in a building with a garage. >> that is for residential units. if there is no off-street car parking on-site, they are not required to do that. for other uses, i think that is different. >> i was confused because i thought at one point you said 2500-square-feet and another time you said 7500-square-feet? >> 2500-square-feet was an example of an restaurant that will not have class 1 requirements? >> okay, that makes sense. thanks. i'm very supportive of the registration, but i know that the bike theft issue is a large one, actually. >> i thank you for the presentation. i am highly supportive and along the way with bicycle parking i think we have a long

way to go in san francisco before we have too much bicycle parking so i am looking for having this item back to vote on it. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners that will place you to item 14 and 1327 polk street a request for conditional use authorizations. please note on october 25, 2012 following public testimony the commission continued the matter to december 13th. the public hearing remains open. >> good afternoon, president fong and commissioners, i am rick crawford of the department staff. this case is to clarify the continuation of a wine store, tasting room and bar at 1327 polk street within the polk street ncd. the business remains a combination of retail wine sales, wine tasting with a bar

aabc licensing. these changes are recommended as conditions of approval. in october of the planning commission continued the hearing due to misunderstandings regarding the nature and legality of the use and because of noise complaints. since that hearing staff has met about sponsor and representatives of the lower polk neighborhoods, communicating with the police department and the entertainment commission and on the close reading of the conditional use authorization, motion indicateds that the present operation of the business has a combination of retail wine sales, wine tallesting and bar is consistent with the 2005 authorization. lack of clarity regarding what had been approve can be seen in the fact that six months after the 2005 approval, the zoning administrator revised the interpretation that that authorization had relied upon to explain the differences between the -- between a business with tastings and a

bar and to improse conditions limiting alcohol sales. the predict as a continuation of the status quo with improvements related to noise and live entertainment is now supported by the police department and lower polk neighbors. since the october hearing the department has received three additional letters of support from neighborhood residents and from mercy housing, the property sister. center. the department has received letters of support from the project from 46 area residents and 49 businesss in the petition and support of the project with 96 signatures. the department recommends approval. it complies with the planning

code and advances the objectives and polices of the plan. i would be happy to answer your questions. thank you very much. >> project sponsor, please. >> dear commissioners, i come before you today as the clarification on my cu that was approved in 2005. >> i apologize, could you please state your name for the record? >> my name is william bigelow, owner of the pour house. as rick stated nothing will be changing in the operation of our business. i met with supervisor chu and senior planning staff and lower polk neighbors and have resolved all the issues at-hand. commissioners i'm a small business owner here? san francisco. this business is my life. it sustains me and puts food on my table. during my years on polk street i believe we have revitalized

polk street and in addition, i have been a resident of the neighborhood for 25 years. we also enjoy the support from our landlord mercy housing and the upstairs residential neighbors directly upstairs from our facility. i meet with the building staff steven and henry on-site to keep a good communication line open. i joined lower polk neighbors in 2005 and i am an active member. we do have letters of support from them as well. during my outreach progress, and out of respect to the neighbors from across the street that were here at the last hearing we have reevaluated our background music and sound mitigation. with communication and input from the planning staff we have done noise mitigation to stop the issues of noise. again we have support from our local neighborhood groups and i urge to you to help clarify my

cu and allow my business and my eight employees to continue to serve the community and our guests. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> i am here on behalf of the project sponsor, and i think everything really has been said. we're not talking about the distilled alcohol, but wine. lower polk has now much improved. and if this business is not allowed to continue in its present state, there will be a vacancy and we certainly don't want that. that provides employment for local residents, and it's a great addition to the area. thank you. >> i will call a couple